Providing for Consideration of H.R. Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of and Providing for Consideration of S. Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building, and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7309, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; H.R. 6531, the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act; and S. 2938, to name a post office after Joseph Woodrow Hatchett. The latter two bills failed on suspension last week and so now must be considered under a rule.

We were also expecting to consider H.R. 7688, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act. But after hours of debate in the Rules Committee on this bill, the Democrats had to pull it for lack of support within their own party. Perhaps they realized that, in fact, there is no evidence of price gouging. In fact, this point was made by the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Granholm, in a recent Energy and Commerce Committee hearing where she said: ``I'm not sure anyone is saying there is wholesale gouging.''

You know what? We could focus instead on increasing domestic production rather than blaming an industry, an industry that has also been suffering supply and demand difficulties that are significantly influenced by global factors and government regulation.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorizes programs from the 2014 bill of the same name but makes no needed reforms to workforce development programs. Instead, it increases government control, adds onerous requirements to program administration, and decreases flexibility and the ability to actually achieve results. What are the results that we want? Pulling people out of poverty and enhancing the labor market.

First, the bill authorizes $78 million over 6 years. It does this without making workforce development programs more efficient, without making them tailored to the actual job market, and this funding will further exacerbate what is now becoming increasingly evident as an inflationary crisis.

The bill expands the size of State and local workforce boards, making room for organized labor. It also introduces Federal definitions of job quality, a determination that actually should be made by employers. How is a Federal agency in Washington, D.C. best equipped to determine the job quality for someone in Krum, Texas, a town of around 4,000 people back in my district in North Texas?

This bill also requires burdensome equity reports. If our goal is to pull people out of poverty and get them into the workforce, then every eligible person should have the opportunity to access these programs, not just a certain few who meet certain criteria.

Finally, this bill maintains the current Job Corps system without adapting to the changing needs of eligible youth and continues the inflexibility of the current apprenticeship system. I have long been concerned that many young people do not always recognize their best path to prosperity. For example, many students are conditioned to believe that they can only get a good job by attending a 4-year university. Meanwhile, a licensed plumber or an electrician or a welder can often make more than someone with a university degree. Apprenticeships have been a good way for someone to learn these special trades. However, the program's structure is left over from the time of the Depression in the 1930s and needs to be updated to meet today's vastly different work environments.

Another concern I have is the amount of student loan debt burdening our labor force. Flexible training or certificate programs could lead to less debt by giving jobseekers alternatives to the traditional 4- year university path.

Additionally, we should be looking at ways to encourage the private sector, private employers, to provide student loan repayment programs for their employees, perhaps through a tax credit or other incentive. The Federal Government has a student loan repayment program, and it is a significant incentive for many young people to join public service.

The Republican substitute amendment would have added flexibility into many programs and reformed our workforce development systems to ensure that employee skill development is aligned with employer needs. A huge factor in successful programming is knowing the programs are actually meeting the actual needs.

The Republican substitute amendment would have ensured that States and localities could use funding to survey employers to understand the most in-demand skills.

Mr. Speaker, in the post-COVID world, employers and employees have adapted to different styles of training and workforce environments. The Republican substitute amendment encourages workforce boards to provide services virtually to meet the changing needs of today's workforce. We should be inserting additional flexibility into these programs rather than simply maintaining the status quo, a status quo that was developed many, many decades ago.

Unfortunately, the Republican amendment was defeated during the Education and Labor Committee markup and likely will be defeated when it is considered on the House floor.

Continued partisanship is not the path forward when it comes to equipping the workforce for the modern labor market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, introduced by Ranking Members McMorris Rodgers and Westerman.

In the past 2 months, Democrats have denied consideration of this essential bill five times, choosing instead to continue their assault on domestic energy production through drilling and export restrictions and massive tax increases on producers.

Republicans remain committed to America's energy independence by approving the Keystone XL pipeline, by removing restrictions on the United States liquefied natural gas exports, by restarting oil and natural gas leasing, and protecting energy and mineral development.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is one of the most lucid speakers that we have on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank my colleagues who have come to the floor and spoken in favor of defeating the previous question in order to consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

We have seen the damage that one-party rule has done in this town over the last 18 months and, unfortunately, the victims of that damage are the American people. So here, today, in this body, there is a chance to vote against the previous question and bring up this important amendment to begin to get some relief for the American people.

In addition, back in 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which is also the subject of this rule, was enacted on a bipartisan basis. But once again, one-party Democratic rule could not be satisfied with that, and our colleagues have blocked Republican efforts to try to improve the 2022 version of this bill and find any sort of compromise.

Our workforce development programs need to be modernized and modernized accurately in order to match the changing labor market. But this bill lacks the necessary reforms and, instead, adds burdensome requirements and centralized governance to these many programs. This is not the way to prepare employers and potential employees to thrive in a post-pandemic world.

Again, we have an opportunity to defeat the previous question and consider rationalizing our energy markets. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source